G.R. No.
169135               June 18, 2010 On February 17, 2004, respondent filed a motion (subject motion) for the
JOSE DELOS REYES, Petitioner,
vs.
JOSEPHINE ANNE B. RAMNANI, Respondent.
DECISION
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
A judgment debt is enforced by the levy and sale of the debtor’s
property.1 The issuance of the final certificate of sale to the purchaser at the
execution sale is a mere formality upon the debtor’s failure to redeem the
property within the redemption period.
This Petition for Review on Certiorari  seeks to reverse and set aside the May
13, 2005 Decision2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 87972,
which affirmed the August 19, 20043 and November 10, 20044 Orders of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City, Branch 159 in Civil Case No. 24858.
Also assailed is the August 3, 2005 Resolution5 denying petitioner’s motion
for reconsideration.
Factual Antecedents
On October 11, 1977, the trial court rendered a Decision in Civil Case No.
24858 in favor of respondent Josephine Anne B. Ramnani. Thereafter, a writ
of execution was issued by the trial court. On June 6, 1978, then Branch
Sheriff Pedro T. Alarcon conducted a public bidding and auction sale over
the property covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 480537
(subject property) during which respondent was the highest bidder.
Consequently, a certificate of sale was executed in her favor on even date.
On November 17, 1978, a writ of possession was issued by the trial court.
On March 8, 1990, the certificate of sale was annotated at the back of TCT
No. 480537. Thereafter, the taxes due on the sale of the subject property
were paid on September 26, 2001.1avvphi1
issuance of an order directing the sheriff to execute the final certificate of
sale in her favor. Petitioner opposed on the twin grounds that the subject
motion was not accompanied by a notice of hearing and that the trial
court’s October 11, 1977 Decision can no longer be executed as it is barred
by prescription.
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
In its August 19, 2004 Order, the trial court granted the motion:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the motion is hereby GRANTED; and this
Court hereby directs the Branch Sheriff of this Court to issue the
corresponding Final Certificate of Sale in the above-entitled case in
accordance with the rules immediately upon receipt hereof.
SO ORDERED.6
The trial court ruled that the prescription for the issuance of a writ of
execution is not applicable in this case. Less than a year from the October
11, 1977 Decision, respondent exercised her right to enforce the same
through the levy and sale of the subject property on June 6, 1978. Although
the certificate of sale was annotated on TCT No. 480537 only on March 8,
1990, petitioner did not exercise his right to redeem the subject property
within one year from said registration. Thus, what remains to be done is the
issuance of the final certificate of sale which was, however, not promptly
accomplished at that time due to the demise of the trial court’s sheriff. The
issuance of the final certificate of sale is a ministerial duty of the sheriff in
order to complete the already enforced judgment.
Petitioner moved for reconsideration which was denied by the trial court in
its November 10, 2004 Order. Petitioner thereafter sought review
via certiorari before the CA.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
The CA denied the petition in its assailed May 13, 2005 Decision:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby DENIED. The
orders dated August 19, 2004 and November 10, 2004 of the RTC, Branch
159, Pasig City in Civil Case No. 24858 are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.7
In affirming the ruling of the trial court, the CA noted that the subject
motion is a non-litigious motion, hence, the three-day notice rule does not
apply. Further, it agreed with the trial court that the issuance of the final
certificate of sale is not barred by prescription, laches or estoppel because
the October 11, 1977 Decision was already executed through the levy and
sale of the subject property on June 6, 1978. Respondent is entitled to the
issuance of the final certificate of sale as a matter of right because
petitioner failed to redeem the subject property.
Issues
1. Whether the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction in taking cognizance of the fatally defective
motion and the subsequent issuance of the Orders dated August 19, 2004
and November 10, 2004;
2. Whether respondent is barred by prescription, laches or estoppel.8
Petitioner’s Arguments
Petitioner contends that the motion dated February 16, 2004 filed by
respondent to compel the sheriff to execute the final certificate of sale is
fatally defective because it does not contain a notice of hearing. He further
claims that the subject motion seeks to enforce the trial court’s October 11,
1977 Decision which can no longer be done because 27 years have elapsed
from the finality of said Decision.
Respondent’s Arguments
Respondent contends that the subject motion is a non-litigious motion and
that petitioner was not denied due process because he was given an
opportunity to be heard by the trial court. She also points out that said
motion is not barred by prescription, laches and estoppel considering that
the levy and sale of the subject property was conducted on June 6, 1978
and petitioner failed to redeem the same.
Our Ruling
The petition lacks merit.
Respondent is entitled to the issuance of the final certificate of sale as a
matter of right.
Petitioner, in essence, argues that the October 11, 1977 Decision was not
timely executed because of respondent’s failure to secure the final
certificate of sale within 10 years from the entry of said judgment. This is
erroneous. It is not disputed that shortly after the trial court rendered the
aforesaid judgment, respondent moved for execution which was granted by
the trial court. On June 6, 1978, the subject property was sold on execution
sale. Respondent emerged as the highest bidder, thus, a certificate of sale
was executed by the sheriff in her favor on the same day. As correctly held
by the trial court, the October 11, 1977 Decision was already enforced when
the subject property was levied and sold on June 6, 1978 which is within the
five-year period for the execution of a judgment by motion under Section
6,9 Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.
It is, likewise, not disputed that petitioner failed to redeem the subject
property within one year from the annotation of the certificate of sale on
TCT No. 480537. The expiration of the one-year redemption period
foreclosed petitioner’s right to redeem the subject property and the sale
thereby became absolute. The issuance thereafter of a final certificate of
sale is a mere formality and confirmation of the title that is already vested in
respondent.10 Thus, the trial court properly granted the motion for issuance
of the final certificate of sale.
As to petitioner’s claim that the subject motion is defective for lack of a
notice of hearing, the CA correctly ruled that the subject motion is a non-
litigious motion. While, as a general rule, all written motions should be set
for hearing under Section 4,11 Rule 15 of the Rules of Court, excepted from
this rule are non-litigious motions or motions which may be acted upon by
the court without prejudicing the rights of the adverse party.12 As already
discussed, respondent is entitled to the issuance of the final certificate of
sale as a matter of right and petitioner is powerless to oppose the
same.13 Hence, the subject motion falls under the class of non-litigious
motions. At any rate, the trial court gave petitioner an opportunity to
oppose the subject motion as in fact he filed a Comment/ Opposition14 on
March 1, 2004 before the trial court. Petitioner cannot, therefore, validly
claim that he was denied his day in court.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The May 13, 2005 Decision and August
3, 2005 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 87972
are AFFIRMED.

Costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO

Associate Justice